Al Baghdadi.

[wingnut-]

22 hours ago, Steve_S said:

The great difficulty with this is that Oholibah is not even mentioned as being the chief harlot between the two mentioned in Ezekiel 23, but Samaria is. Note that it was Samaria that was carried off first, not Judah.

 

I think you may have misread that, Oholibah (Jerusalem) is said to be worse, in both chapters.

 

Ezekiel 23:11 “Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became more corrupt than her sister in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister. 

 

Ezekiel 16:51 Samaria has not committed half your sins. You have committed more abominations than they, and have made your sisters appear righteous by all the abominations that you have committed.

 

Jerusalem made Samaria and Sodom appear righteous.

 

23 hours ago, Steve_S said:

Secondly, in the case of egypt, using that reasoning, that would make egypt the mother. I cannot recall any biblical imagery that envisions the a mother as a "worst" or "chief" of something, rather than the progenitor or originator of something.

 

We are told who the parents are in the Ezekiel 16 passage, and Egypt is not the answer.

 

Ezekiel 16:2 “Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, 3 and say, Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.

 

When Israel first entered the land, the king of Jerusalem was an Amorite.

 

Joshua 10:5  Then the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon, gathered their forces and went up with all their armies and encamped against Gibeon and made war against it.

 

After their defeat at Gibeon these 5 kings retreat and hide in a cave, where they are closed in, then released after their cities are taken and put to death themselves.  However, Jerusalem was not cleared of its inhabitants by Benjamin and Judah, the Jebusites remained.  It wasn't until David came along that Jerusalem was taken possession of.

 

II Samuel 5:3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. 5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.

6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” 7 Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. 8 And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” 9 And David lived in the stronghold and called it the city of David. And David built the city all around from the Millo inward. 10 And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.

 

23 hours ago, Steve_S said:

My question is still why Jerusalem is referred to as a daughter of harlorty in Ezekiel 23 if one of them is the "mother" of all harlotry.

 

It does not say she is the mother of all harlotry, you are adding the all in there, it says she is the mother of harlots, which is what Ezekiel tells us in chapter 16, Jerusalem is a mother of harlots.

 

Revelation 17:5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes (harlots) and of earth's abominations.”

 

Ezekiel 16:44 “Behold, everyone who uses proverbs will use this proverb about you: ‘Like mother, like daughter.’

Ezekiel 16: 48 As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.

 

[wingnut-]

On 11/13/2019 at 2:29 PM, Steve_S said:

Is the claim that that specific geographic area will be uninhabited perpetually?

 

If those passages are to be taken literally, it would appear so.  However, there are specific statements to be considered in all of this regarding Babylon.

 

Revelation 18:21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying,

“So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence,
    and will be found no more;

 

This city will be "thrown down", and the understanding of that is in relation to its location, on the Judaean Mountains.  The following is said as a result of the 7th bowl/vial.

 

Revelation 16:19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.

 

If the mountains on which it sits are gone and not to be found, then it stands to reason that the city sitting on a mountain plateau is no longer sitting there and has in fact been literally "thrown down".  And if the mountains it sat on are no longer there, then the Jerusalem of the Millennium cannot be the same city as earthly Jerusalem.

 

23 hours ago, Steve_S said:

Also, with regards to Zion, I would have to disagree quite strongly with that. Zion is specifically delineated as the City of David (which still exists, right now).

 

The city that sits there now is a symbolic reference to the Zion of the future.

 

Hebrews 12:18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

 

As Jesus said.

 

John 18:36  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

 

And His kingdom comes at this point.

 

Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”

[Steve_S]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

If those passages are to be taken literally, it would appear so.  However, there are specific statements to be considered in all of this regarding Babylon.

I generally take all passages literally unless there is a specific reason contextually not to. That's just the principle of biblical study that I follow. I do understand others follow different ones than that.

Rather than quoting your entire post piece by piece (which would lead to far too long a post if you take the response to it into account), I will just respond in totality to it here.

As noted above, I take prophecy (and everything else in the scriptures) literally unless obvious contextualized metaphor is being used. There are several good arguments that the the babylon of Revelation is different than the literal babylon of old, so to speak. I do tend to think that it may be a restored babylon or possibly representative of the seat of power of the man of sin (maybe rome, I don't know). The real problem with making it Jerusalem is that it requires spiritualization of incredibly massive swaths of prophecy from the old testament. One could follow that line of reasoning to the conclusion that Babylon itself never existed and that all references to Babylon have always been about Jerusalem (this would actually be required to maintain any consistency in exposition on Babylon itself, but I will digress on that point).

The real issue here is that every single old testament prophecy regarding Babylon reads as if it is actually speaking of physical babylon, all of them. Compare them in a vacuum, compare them to each other, compare them to every other single reference to Babylon in the entire Bible outside of Revelation 17-18 and that maintains a striking consistency). However one goes about it, always seems to consistently be Babylon. It is only when one interposes the Jerusalem theory for Revelation 17-18 that anyone would have any reason to read it differently. That is my massive, basically unassailable problem with it. I admit I may be wrong to be sure, but I'd much rather stand on a hill of literalism as opposed to spiritualism in biblical exposition, but that's the lens through which I view the scriptures in general, a literal one. I see now reason to separate out prophecy from any other sort of study with regards to that.

I think it's easily demonstrated that God is a specific in His word, and especially in his prophecies. There are massive holes in the Jerusalem theory from a position of specificity. It requires reading large passages in a general way, rather than exploring the specific minutiae. This, in my experience (e.g. the fact that Jerusalem is mentioned as being a daughter and a sister of harlotry in one of the key passages used to prove she is the mother of all harlotry!!!!!).

[Steve_S]

2 hours ago, wingnut- said:

We are told who the parents are in the Ezekiel 16 passage, and Egypt is not the answer.

Ezekiel 16:2 “Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, 3 and say, Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.

This is with regards to a very specific thing, not actual physical lineage:

Eze 16:36  Thus says the Lord GOD: "Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, 
Eze 16:37  surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 

They participated in child sacrifice, which is one of the things that caused God to order them to do away with the Amorites in the first place. God told Abraham that they had to tarry in Egypt specifically until the iniquity of the Amorites was complete or had come to full fruition.

Gen 15:16  But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

But, since we are on Ezekiel 16 and it is being used as a proof text as part of an argument to show that Jerusalem will be destroyed forever, this is the question I have, what does this mean?

Eze 16:59  For thus says the Lord GOD: "I will deal with you as you have done, who despised the oath by breaking the covenant. 
Eze 16:60  "Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 
Eze 16:61  Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters; for I will give them to you for daughters, but not because of My covenant with you. 
Eze 16:62  And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, 
Eze 16:63  that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done," says the Lord GOD.' "

So the physical Jerusalem that exists now, this doesn't apply?

 

 

[Steve_S]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

This city will be "thrown down", and the understanding of that is in relation to its location, on the Judaean Mountains.  The following is said as a result of the 7th bowl/vial.

Revelation 16:19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.

Rev 18:2  And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!

Whatever Babylon is, it is an actual place. If is the current Jerusalem being thrown down at the end of the current age and just prior to the Millennial reign, then we have to believe that it is going to be a physical place going forward. Birds can't live in metaphors.

Is there, in the midst of the reconstituted canaan that has Israel dwelling there in peace and safety, going to be a literal city of ruins that is inhabited by demons?

[angels4u]

1 hour ago, Steve_S said:

I generally take all passages literally unless there is a specific reason contextually not to. That's just the principle of biblical study that I follow. I do understand others follow different ones than that.

Rather than quoting your entire post piece by piece (which would lead to far too long a post if you take the response to it into account), I will just respond in totality to it here.

As noted above, I take prophecy (and everything else in the scriptures) literally unless obvious contextualized metaphor is being used. There are several good arguments that the the babylon of Revelation is different than the literal babylon of old, so to speak. I do tend to think that it may be a restored babylon or possibly representative of the seat of power of the man of sin (maybe rome, I don't know). The real problem with making it Jerusalem is that it requires spiritualization of incredibly massive swaths of prophecy from the old testament. One could follow that line of reasoning to the conclusion that Babylon itself never existed and that all references to Babylon have always been about Jerusalem (this would actually be required to maintain any consistency in exposition on Babylon itself, but I will digress on that point).

The real issue here is that every single old testament prophecy regarding Babylon reads as if it is actually speaking of physical babylon, all of them. Compare them in a vacuum, compare them to each other, compare them to every other single reference to Babylon in the entire Bible outside of Revelation 17-18 and that maintains a striking consistency). However one goes about it, always seems to consistently be Babylon. It is only when one interposes the Jerusalem theory for Revelation 17-18 that anyone would have any reason to read it differently. That is my massive, basically unassailable problem with it. I admit I may be wrong to be sure, but I'd much rather stand on a hill of literalism as opposed to spiritualism in biblical exposition, but that's the lens through which I view the scriptures in general, a literal one. I see now reason to separate out prophecy from any other sort of study with regards to that.

I think it's easily demonstrated that God is a specific in His word, and especially in his prophecies. There are massive holes in the Jerusalem theory from a position of specificity. It requires reading large passages in a general way, rather than exploring the specific minutiae. This, in my experience (e.g. the fact that Jerusalem is mentioned as being a daughter and a sister of harlotry in one of the key passages used to prove she is the mother of all harlotry!!!!!).

Quote

 I do tend to think that it may be a restored babylon or possibly representative of the seat of power of the man of sin 

Could it be that Babylon in Iraq will be the city the Bible talks about in Revelation ? Remember how Sadat Hossain already was trying to rebuild it?

 

 

[Steve_S]

8 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Could it be that Babylon in Iraq will be the city the Bible talks about in Revelation ? Remember how Sadat Hossain already was trying to rebuild it?

The most literal reading is that it is. I won't be dogmatic on it, because there is not a city there right now, well, there is one, but it's mostly buried and the only folks who are around there are shepherds and such.

The word "mystery" preceding the name certainly leaves open a wide door for it not being literal. The angel does reveal the mystery, though, just not in specific terms. So, one could take it to mean that any remaining mystery is with regard to the identify of the kings, etc., as opposed to the city itself.

A lot of people in the late 80s and early 90s really thought that it was about to be rebuilt fully and that it would play into prophecy. That partial unearthing and restoration that Saddam undertook did serve to prove something though, which is that Babylon was not destroyed to the degree that the bible said it would be, which leaves open possibilities that may have seemed not very likely before.

If at some point it does start being actually rebuilt, a lot of folks are going to need to relook at interpretations of Revelation 17-18. I'm not sitting in expectation of that, but I certainly think it's possible.

[angels4u]

45 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

The most literal reading is that it is. I won't be dogmatic on it, because there is not a city there right now, well, there is one, but it's mostly buried and the only folks who are around there are shepherds and such.

The word "mystery" preceding the name certainly leaves open a wide door for it not being literal. The angel does reveal the mystery, though, just not in specific terms. So, one could take it to mean that any remaining mystery is with regard to the identify of the kings, etc., as opposed to the city itself.

A lot of people in the late 80s and early 90s really thought that it was about to be rebuilt fully and that it would play into prophecy. That partial unearthing and restoration that Saddam undertook did serve to prove something though, which is that Babylon was not destroyed to the degree that the bible said it would be, which leaves open possibilities that may have seemed not very likely before.

If at some point it does start being actually rebuilt, a lot of folks are going to need to relook at interpretations of Revelation 17-18. I'm not sitting in expectation of that, but I certainly think it's possible.

Thanks, that's what I'm thinking also.

Babylon  can't be Jerusalem as we will go up to worship God every year in the Millenial and Jesus will reign from Jerusalem, I believe Jerusalem will be trampled on by their enemies but God will come to the resque and show that He is Lord and Jerusalem belongs to Him,is that how you read the Bible also?

The Destroyers of Jerusalem Destroyed
1Behold, a day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided in your presence. 2For I will gather all the nations for battle against Jerusalem, and the city will be captured, the houses looted, and the women ravished. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be removed from the city.…Zech 14:1

Rev 7 :19 Jerusalem will be divided in 3 part by Babylon and the nations.

[wingnut-]

5 hours ago, Steve_S said:

I generally take all passages literally unless there is a specific reason contextually not to. That's just the principle of biblical study that I follow.

 

I do the same, the only reason I can think of to not accept something literally is when an obvious contradiction occurs.  In those instances there must be a reason for any apparent contradiction.  

 

5 hours ago, Steve_S said:

I do tend to think that it may be a restored babylon or possibly representative of the seat of power of the man of sin (maybe rome, I don't know). The real problem with making it Jerusalem is that it requires spiritualization of incredibly massive swaths of prophecy from the old testament. One could follow that line of reasoning to the conclusion that Babylon itself never existed and that all references to Babylon have always been about Jerusalem (this would actually be required to maintain any consistency in exposition on Babylon itself, but I will digress on that point).

 

Here is the problem with the idea of a restored Babylon, and in hindsight I really should have begun with this when you first asked what happened to Babylon.  Let's start with what led up to the Babylonian exile, and we can see an obvious dual prophecy in scripture right here.  Jeremiah begins this chapter talking about a very specific time, the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar.  He tells about the warnings to Judah and Jerusalem from God to turn from their wicked ways and be obedient, which they do not do, so then he tells them what  the Lord has in store for them.

 

Jeremiah 25:8 “Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. 10 Moreover, I will banish from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the grinding of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste. 13 I will bring upon that land all the words that I have uttered against it, everything written in this book, which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations. 14 For many nations and great kings shall make slaves even of them, and I will recompense them according to their deeds and the work of their hands.”

 

Ok, so now we have a literal problem.  Jerusalem has not been an everlasting desolation since the Babylonian captivity, the whole land is not a ruin and a waste.  And what happened to Babylon after the seventy years?  Did it become an everlasting waste?  Jeremiah goes on to give us a list from God, of all the nations who are to drink from the cup of wrath.

 

Jeremiah 25:17 So I took the cup from the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to whom the Lord sent me drink it: 18 Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day; 19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his officials, all his people, 20 and all the mixed tribes among them; all the kings of the land of Uz and all the kings of the land of the Philistines (Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod); 21 Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon; 22 all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon, and the kings of the coastland across the sea; 23 Dedan, Tema, Buz, and all who cut the corners of their hair; 24 all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed tribes who dwell in the desert; 25 all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of Media; 26 all the kings of the north, far and near, one after another, and all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth. And after them the king of Babylon shall drink.

 

Now this is where the prophecy really begins to show the duality of its nature, verse 26 in particular.  Jeremiah was instructed to take this cup to each of these nations, and at the end Babylon itself is to receive the cup.  Are we to believe that Jeremiah literally covered the entire earth and every kingdom on it at that time?  If you look really closely at the list prior to verse 26, what we see are all of the nations that Babylon took possession of during Nebuchadnezzar's reign.  None of them immediately became an everlasting desolation.  But again, what happened to Babylon after the 70 years?

 

Daniel 5:24 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put around his neck, and a proclamation was made about him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

30 That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. 31  And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

 

Belshazzar had a party and decided it was a good idea for him and his guests to drink from the cups looted from the Lord's temple.  The hand of God literally appeared and wrote on the wall, declaring the kingdom of Babylon was over, and it happened that very night.  There is no more Babylon from that point as far as a kingdom, the city lingered for awhile, the Parsin part of the writing became half true that very night and was completed when Cyrus later took the city.  Later it was taken by the Greeks, but after the death of Alexander and the wars that ensued it fell into a state of disrepair and eventually was swept away by the sand.  But the point is, God declared the kingdom of Babylon as finished, literally, so it will not be rising again physically.

 

5 hours ago, Steve_S said:

(e.g. the fact that Jerusalem is mentioned as being a daughter and a sister of harlotry in one of the key passages used to prove she is the mother of all harlotry!!!!!).

 

But you're still literally changing the term, from mother of harlots, to the mother of all harlotry.  The title is literally, mother of harlots, which Ezekiel tells us that Jerusalem is a harlot, and she has daughters that are also harlots.  He gives us the proverb, "like mother, like daughter", which tells us that not only was Jerusalem a harlot, but her mother was a harlot, her sisters are harlots, and all their daughters are thereby harlots, just like their mothers.

The difference is, Jerusalem and her daughters are singled out as being unique harlots, and for being worse than the others.  If the requirement mother of harlots is taken at face value, then it is obvious that Jerusalem qualifies.  When it is changed to mother of all harlotry then no one qualifies, but that is not what the passage says.

 

5 hours ago, Steve_S said:

I think it's easily demonstrated that God is a specific in His word, and especially in his prophecies. There are massive holes in the Jerusalem theory from a position of specificity. It requires reading large passages in a general way, rather than exploring the specific minutiae.

 

We haven't really gotten into anything at this point, we are still having a difficult time with the title, mother of harlots.  The only other detail mentioned thus far was in regards to the double portion and you did not respond to that, but really we have barely scratched the surface on specifics.

[Steve_S]

18 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

I do the same, the only reason I can think of to not accept something literally is when an obvious contradiction occurs.  In those instances there must be a reason for any apparent contradiction.  

In reading through your post. I think I must get it out there that we may define literally differently. Of course, there is a necessity to understand that there is metaphor. So for instance, if the scripture says a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, then one would obviously take that metaphorically, particularly when interpretations are given of that beast.

However, if the scripture literally says the word Babylon multiple times through several chapters in reference to a literal physical city that still existed at that time, it is incredibly difficult for me to view it as anything *but that.*

21 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The difference is, Jerusalem and her daughters are singled out as being unique harlots, and for being worse than the others.  If the requirement mother of harlots is taken at face value, then it is obvious that Jerusalem qualifies.  When it is changed to mother of all harlotry then no one qualifies, but that is not what the passage says.

Ah, but therein lies another problem. We can say "mother of harlots" rather than mother of all harlots. That once again opens up a number of other possibilities which are far stronger. I see no problem with removing "all" from the title. However, I also see nowhere in the text that requires "unique" harlots or "worse" harlots either. That's the real problem. As you say, the text literally just says "mother of harlots." There is no impetus to read Jerusalem into that.

26 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

We haven't really gotten into anything at this point, we are still having a difficult time with the title, mother of harlots.  The only other detail mentioned thus far was in regards to the double portion and you did not respond to that, but really we have barely scratched the surface on specifics.

I read back a bit and did find this part (I am often trying to respond to these far faster than I should lol). I'd like to focus on one verse.

Isaiah 40:2  Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins.

Now, if this is a direct allusion to Jerusalem receiving a double portion in a Revelation 17-18 sense, why is comfort being spoken? Jerusalem would be a smoking ruin with nothing left, yet, it was pardoned?